Board upholds permit for small wireless facility at 220 Campbell Ave.; RF report finds exposure far below FCC limits

The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 5-0 to deny an appeal brought by Christina O’Bannon and to uphold a Public Works permit for a small, replacement pole-mounted wireless facility at 220 Campbell Ave.

Verizon representatives described a compact facility that increases pole height by less than five feet and complies with Public Works Article 25 design standards and notice requirements. Counsel said the company provided mailed notices within a 300-foot radius, posted notices at multiple poles, and sent courtesy emails to neighborhood groups and the Board of Supervisors.

Raj Mathur, a licensed electrical engineer with Hammitt & Edison who authored the third-party RF report, told the board the site will comply with FCC exposure limits. He said his firm’s calculations show the maximum RF exposure at the appellant’s home would be about 1.2% of the FCC limit, “about 80 times below the FCC limit,” and the maximum at the nearest building (about 20 feet away) would be about 8.9% of the limit. Mathur said post-construction, conditions-of-approval require measurements to confirm compliance.

Public Works and the Planning Department told the board the permit obeyed the article-25 referral and review steps; Public Works noted the permit was reviewed by Planning and the Department of Public Health. Resident Derek Wong raised concerns about proximity and visibility from nearby windows; appellant Christina O’Bannon spoke later, saying she is “not sure what the long term effects” of 5G technology will be and asked why the facility must be placed next to her home.

Commissioners questioned notice procedures and the practicalities of posted notices; staff said posting practices are intended to reduce loss and that multiple notice forms were used. The board also discussed the option for post-installation RF power-density measurements by the permittee or at a resident’s request. Vice President Lazarus moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit; the motion carried 5-0.

The board’s action leaves the Public Works permit in place; conditions cited during the hearing require the permittee to submit a post-installation RF study and afford residents an avenue to request on-site readings.